I just want to point out that people are generally the same wherever you go, theres always the chi believers, always the pragmatists, always the people who substitute written arguments for training methods etc. I don't think people change much. If some guy joins a BJJ club and hes interested in exploring 'chi' or some such, he'll probably leave the club and go join a tai chi class or something. I think people only ever get interested in whats important to them anyway.

Originally Posted by Matt Thornton

In other words, if someone says "I do Tai Chi because I find it a relaxing form of moving meditation". . . .I say, rock on! In fact, I might even join them.

However, if someone says "no need for Doctors Tai Chi will cure your cancer." Then I may need to question that. And that questioning is also incredibly healthy. Likewise, if they say " Tai Chi will serve as a wonderful form of self defense". . .then I will also want to question that. Both those claims, 'cures cancer', and 'good for self defense', are verifiable within objective reality . And as such, if we are really interested in Truth with the capitol T, then not only should we question those statements, I believe we have an obligation to.

I really like this article on your website and in particular this bit.

One of the big problems in the wing chun community is that is too 'subjective' (answers only to its own authority) and there aren't any 'objective' measures that it really complies to. A lot of the training methods are seriously dated as well.

I don't think that you can apply the 'competitions aren't accurate' argument to KO stuff, maybe to purely points scoring stuff but KO is a different game its far more punishiing and realistic.

I think in the next ten years as MMA grows in popularity and people are forced to reassess their training habits that you will see the wing chun community change and maybe even grow into some good practitioners (alive) heck there might even be competitors one day.

Bruce lee was pretty pissed off at TMA yet he kept some of the wing chun stuff in his arsenal, theres a few gems in anything if you know what to look for I think.

Anyway just wanted to say we aren't all loonies.

Oh and I am horribly, horribly biased in the favour of wing chun, so don't believe anything that I say.

I just want to point out that people are generally the same wherever you go, theres always the chi believers, always the pragmatists, always the people who substitute written arguments for training methods etc. I don't think people change much. If some guy joins a BJJ club and hes interested in exploring 'chi' or some such, he'll probably leave the club and go join a tai chi class or something. I think people only ever get interested in whats important to them anyway.

I really like this article on your website and in particular this bit.

One of the big problems in the wing chun community is that is too 'subjective' (answers only to its own authority) and there aren't any 'objective' measures that it really complies to. A lot of the training methods are seriously dated as well.

I don't think that you can apply the 'competitions aren't accurate' argument to KO stuff, maybe to purely points scoring stuff but KO is a different game its far more punishiing and realistic.

I think in the next ten years as MMA grows in popularity and people are forced to reassess their training habits that you will see the wing chun community change and maybe even grow into some good practitioners (alive) heck there might even be competitors one day.

Bruce lee was pretty pissed off at TMA yet he kept some of the wing chun stuff in his arsenal, theres a few gems in anything if you know what to look for I think.

Anyway just wanted to say we aren't all loonies.

Oh and I am horribly, horribly biased in the favour of wing chun, so don't believe anything that I say.

:)

Bruce Lee kept some of the stuff in his arsenal, but truly that doesn't mean much. There aren't very many verified accounts of Bruce Lee fighting any difficult opponents. If anything honor him for his incredible athletic build, but truthfully there are many martial artists with more combat experience than Bruce Lee.

I love Bruce Lee by the way, but I love him enough to acknowledge the truth about him. :)

Bruce Lee kept some of the stuff in his arsenal, but truly that doesn't mean much. There aren't very many verified accounts of Bruce Lee fighting any difficult opponents. If anything honor him for his incredible athletic build, but truthfully there are many martial artists with more combat experience than Bruce Lee.

I love Bruce Lee by the way, but I love him enough to acknowledge the truth about him. :)

oops sorry didn't realized we had an expert on board.

"Itís a little tough for the traditional martial artists to swallow, because one system doesnít do it. Youíve got to cross-train in many different systems. Actually, the father of mixed martial arts, if you will, was Bruce Lee. If you look at the way Bruce Lee trained, the way he fought, and many of the things he wrote, he said the perfect style was no style. You take a little something from everything. You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away." - Dana White, president of UFC

Most of the training ideas that are promoted on this site, like lots of sparring and competition, and discarding old and traditional training practices (absorb what is useful etc) Bruce lee was dedicated to and wrote extensively on the subject over 30 years ago. I'd say he was a bit ahead of his time.

"admire him only for his body build" - so not for the originality of his thought process or his dedication to sticking with his own opinions and testing them etc? Where do you think he got that from?

If your post was a round about way of saying 'bruce kept wing chun in his aresenal, but its actually useless and he was wrong because he was inexperienced' - why don't you say that?

I don't have a problem with you not liking wing chun, I understand theres a lot of genuine and rightful anger towards its teachers for being lazy and its students for being pliable and weak minded about their own training. If you think all of the technique in it is useless too you can say that.

If you said 'admire bruce for the things other than wing chun, because they are far more important' I would have been like 'hell yeah', but you have to make some comment about only appreciating his athletic build.

If you search this board you'll find out Bruce Lee was NOT the father of MMA. His thought patterns were not anything new. He was extremely popular, which is one reason Dana White promotes him. Bruce's influence made the ideas of MMA more known worldwide, but that doesn't mean there weren't already MA schools training aliveness etc. around the world.

believe me, there are a lot of people who hate Bruce more than me on this board. Just search function.